Minimum Wage

Adam Smith would definitely approve of our minimum wage policy. It seems that Smith believes that the government must prevent all of the poor working people, from falling any lower in society. “…is the state into which the laboring poor, that is the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it.” (Smith, 38) In this quote we can see that Smith recognizes that the majority of people who work are not the ones that are make tons of money but are the poorer people, and Smith believes in great societies the government must keep the poor from falling. One way that the government can do this is by making sure that there is a standard payment that everyone can make. By making this law the government can try and keep the number of poor in more control. However, this can only keep the number of poor in so much control. I think he would also be glad to see that minimum wage has been riding, because as time goes on more money has been needed to make a living and to live more comfortably. If there was a minimum wage that didn’t get risen every, then I think we would have a lot bigger of a problem. As the value of items went up, the number of poor people would also rise, and I don’t think that Adam Smith would be satisfied with that situation.

Fingers crossed for our first blog-free weekend!

To Adam Smith, a law presenting a minimum amount that the lowest worker must make is a wonderful idea. He would agree with the fact that there needs to be a boundary set so that even the lowest laborer makes some amount of money. I would not doubt that Smith would even agree with these minimum wage employees being entitled to updated equipment and benefits in order to perform their jobs. He says something very important to this effect in his first chapter. “Everybody must be sensible how much labour is facilitated and abridged by the application of proper machinery” (Smith 27). However, it is hard to judge what benefits a minimum wage employee should get according to Smith because I have a feeling that he would prefer the employee just make slightly more money so they could pay for the care themselves. While Smith would praise the system of minimum wage, he would condemn the way that minimum wage is controlled. So much of the wealth in our country is held by an extremely small percentage of the people. These people then have the most influence over the government and congress. Lo and behold, minimum wage is controlled by government and congress. This means that while minimum wage will not slip downwards, it is extremely difficult for the people earning minimum wage to have their wages changed. Smith would frown upon this practice because he believes that the man doing the labor has just as much rights to his wages as the man on top doing nothing.

$7.15 really does suck

Since Adam Smith is the father of capitalism, I believe that Adam Smith would support the United States’ minimum wage. He believes that people should get what they deserve when they work hard. Adam Smith acknowledges that the poor society deserves a pay when they work hard, so setting a lower limit to how much a worker should be paid is a great idea and helps them to have some kind of an income. But on the other hand there are some factors about the minimum wage he would dislike. There is a great division between the owners of businesses and the workers. Generally, it is easier for owners to lower the minimum wage than workers to raise the minimum wage. Because owners have more power and more money, they have more say in the government and what decisions are made. Even though there are fewer owners in the country and a lot more workers, the money and power the owners have overrules the workers’ numbers. I think anyone, really, would like to see this gap between the two groups lessened. Also, Adam Smith would not be happy with how low the minimum wage actually is. From personal experience of earning the minimum wage (I worked as a hostess in a family-owned restaurant), $7.15 an hour really does suck. Yes, I usually only worked weekends due to schooling, but it is still really hard to afford bills, and well personal pleasures with that amount of money. I cannot even imagine being a poor family, earning the minimum wage, and having to scrape buy while paying the bills, groceries, and other necessities. If minimum wage was increased, I think it would be hard for Adam Smith to find a flaw in the law.

Its called minimum for a reason

Today, almost two million people are living off of minimum wage in the United States. With the economy today, these people are barely getting by. Adam Smith acknowledges the fact that the poor are at a disadvantage in society – an idea that he does not agree with. I believe that Smith would agree with the fact that is a minimum wage law in place, but I do not think he would be happy with the amount that it is at. Seven dollars and fifteen cents is just not enough to live happily without worry or start a family. Smith argues that the poor people do not get an equal chance at a good paying job as the wealthier people do. He explains the reason for this is that poorer people have to get a job – a minimum wage job – as young as they can to start making money. The chances for this person getting a higher paying job are rare because these people enter their jobs at a young age and generally continue working instead of pursuing their education – which would ensure more money. Smith argues that in a way these people are “stuck”. Smith writes, “That trade, too, is generally so simple and uniform as to give little exercise to the understanding, while, at the same time, their labor is both so constant and severe, that it leaves them little leisure and less inclination to apply to, or even to think of, anything else” (39). People working at minimum wage today are in the same boat, and Smith believes that this is just not fair, while other people are living luxurious lives without a worry in the world.

Minimum Wage

Smith would think the minimum wage laws in the U.S. are on the right track. Smith says how families can often not afford education for their children causing the children to have to work as early as possible. Smith also says that this trade is “simple and uniform” to teach the children how to work or to teach the beginnings of a real trade. I do not think Smith would agree with a limitless low for earnings, no matter how simple the task Smith would agree with a uniform minimum wage. The reason the child is working and not getting an education is because of the lack of money, if the child only earned a penny a week, is it really worth it for that child to be working? It would be argued that “every penny counts” but it would make more sense for the child to wait until they are old enough to at least do physical labor and earn say a dollar a week than to have them start work at age three. Work at this early of an age can create a risk of early repetitive motion injury (tendinitis for example), only earn a penny a week, and not be able to work at a later age due to that injury. However, Smith would argue that the current minimum wage should be higher. Since the trade is the life of the person and the life of the person depends on the wages earned from the trade then in order to support a family, roughly seven dollars an hour is not enough. Smith agrees with the concept of a minimum wage but he believes that a family should be able to live off that wage. In the U.S. today it is impossible for a family of four with two people earning minimum wage to have a healthy life. It is nearly impossible for one people working on minimum wage to keep themselves healthy and safe. Smith would argue to keep minimum wage but make it higher.

$7.25 is not enough..

With how Smith talks about wages in “Of the Wages of Labour” he would be supportive of the minimum wage law, but he would not think minimum wage would be enough. Smith stated, “But though in disputes with their workmen, masters must generally have the advantage, there is, however, a certain rate below which it seems impossible to reduce, for any considerable time, the ordinary wages even of the lowest species of labour,” (32). Smith believed that labor is worth a certain amount of money, and the masters should not take advantage of their workers just because they need work. If there was no law, the masters would always underpay their workers just because they know the workers will work for any wage because they need the money.

However, I do believe Smith would think that the minimum wage should be higher. Smith stated, “A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more; otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation,” (32-3). A person working for minimum wage would not bring in enough money to support himself let alone a family. In the world today, a person working 40 hours a week for minimum wage would make a mere $15, 080 a year, that is not even with taxes taken out. Smith would not be happy with that amount of money because it would be impossible for him to raise a family. Overall, Smith would be happy there is a minimum wage law, but he would believe the wage should be higher.

Yayyyyy Danielle!!!!!

I feel that Adam Smith would approve of the minimum wage laws that are in place in the U.S. currently. He feels that even in Barbarous societies men are all viewed as equals and have the same occupations first. That people in society are not necessarily given all the equal opportunities between the rich and the poor. Even though they are given a basic education, those who go to college are at a bigger advantage than those who haven't received one. He feels that it is not necessarily the child's fault if they have to immediately join the work force and don't have an opportunity to get a college education should be able to receive a substantial enough pay. He seems to feel that there is a skill within workers that use their hands more than their minds and that even though their jobs do not go with notice, their jobs are vital to society. I think Adam Smith would approve of the minimum wage laws in the U.S also because they make people more equal. With a min. wage law, people who do not have a skilled job that would tend to be payed less than the min. wage are made more equal to those who get paid large amounts of money. He says when talking about what people must contribute to taxes "In proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy." I think Adam Smith would agree with min. wage laws.

Getting $7.15 a hour blows...

Smith faces a problem of dualistic properties. On one side, we have the laborers: lower class men who must toil under the commands of a master to support himself and his family. On the other, we have the masters: men of high power who control regimes of men to conduct manual work. Now, while each works in mutualistic symbiosis, each side wishes to exploit the other. Workers want more, while masters want to give less. With a minimum wage law, both can be ensured so that even the lowest of laborers are ensured enough money to support themselves and their families, while labor that should remain cheap stays cheap. It works when applied and revised to be able to support any and all who work in the lowest ranks. After all, masters may be trying to undercut their workers as much as possible, but as seen in the Industrial Revolution of America, workers need some rights or they become pseudoslaves (or worse if they receive too little). in today's society, where the top 1% get rich while the rest of us are condemned to deal with an economy gone to hell, our minimum wage law of around $7.15-7.25 a hour will soon not be enough to survive on. Smith recognizes that masters are trying to undercut their workers; who doesn't want to save money? But in our current situation, Smith would be much more concerned about the laborers. If the labor isn't able to support itself, masters are left alone with no one to do the labor for them. So someone like Smith, who recognizes the dependency of both sides to each other, would argue that it is not only in the best interest of the workers, but also for the masters to ensure they don't dig their own grave.

Is the minimum wage too minimal for Smith??

“……unless the government takes some pains to prevent it.” (38) What Smith is saying here is that unless the government does something to prevent it, the poor people of a society will become totally comprised of men whose whole life is spent in one unchanging regime; thus the effects eventually being men who become “stupid and ignorant.” Smith’s argument is that once one’s life becomes stationary and uniform, one’s mind soon follows in the same pattern. This unchanging lifestyle takes away the courage of the mind to think anything that is irregular, uncertain, or radical. Smith takes this argument further and proceeds to make the statement that not only does a static life corrupt one’s mind, but it also renders the body incapable of moving and acting with any energy or vitality. In conclusion, Smith is arguing that staying frozen in one job robs a person of his/her intellectual, social, and even marital qualities. Therefore, it is imperative that the government does something to alleviate this grave problem. Would Smith think the solution to this problem be the implementation of a minimum wage law? Throughout the text he discusses the difference in opportunity for the rich versus the poor. The rich have more time to study before they get a job as well as the means to pay for the best schooling. The poor on the other hand, have neither the time nor the means. In addition to the fact that Smith believes the government should have a hand in alleviating some of these differences, I do believe that he would be in favor of a law that would give some insurance to the poorer people. The problem I think he would find with the minimum wage law would depend upon what the minimum wage actually was. A minimum wage that does not allow one to properly support his/herself is not valuable. In the previous Smith reading, he emphasizes the idea that a man’s wages must be at least sufficient enough to maintain him, but in most cases it needs to be at least double so that he might start a family. Finally, Smith would favor the idea of a minimum wage law, but insist that the wage be satisfactory enough to support oneself and one’s family.

I tried to read the Wealth of Nations when I was 13..but didnt get through it at all.

     Seven dollars and twenty five cents:  this is the minimum wage in the US today.  A large handful of Americans are living off this hourly rate and it is very difficult.  If one is paid on a minimum wage income and works a typical eight hour day, he or she will make about fifty dollars.

     I feel as though Smith may be a “silent advocate” of the less monetarily fortunate.  It seems as though Smith would at least be happy that a minimum wage law existed, to ensure that situations such as slavery did not occur again.  In Smith’s section on wages of labor, he states “it is the workmen’s’ desire to get as much, and the masters to give as little as possible.”  Through this quote, it seems as though he may be sympathizing with the indigent.    He clearly pointed out that the workmen do not get paid in justly for their work.       

     Smith seems to hint that men should have money that they can use for purposes other than nourishment.   He states that a lower class family should be able to earn more than what is necessary to live.  It is possible to live on a minimum wage income, but at times it is very risky.  Most Americans living on this salary typically do not have healthcare.  Smith would most likely argue that this is vital and he even argues (as stated before) that workers should have a bit of money to set aside for leisure.  Most Americans now cannot even afford healthcare, let alone funding for leisure activities.  With that said, I don’t think he would be too pleased.  It may have been easier to live on a fixed income such as the current minimum wage back in Smith’s day, but today it is very difficult.  Millions of Americans come face to face with difficulties in paying rent, supporting their children and taking care of themselves.  

playing devils advocate

Let’s assume for the sake of the argument that minimum wages did not exist. What would happen, and would Smith be in support of this? Ok, I am a poor worker with a family of my own. The amount of money in wages is ridiculously low---it would not support me let alone my family. What are my options…a) I can leave my job and search for a new one. b) I can form a union of other workers and go on strike for higher wages. c) I can enter entrepreneurship, make my own company. What is the likelihood of these things happening? In one view of society, the smallest government possible theory, the above solutions would be a practical substitute for minimum wages. After all, Smith does reason that, “every individual is continually exerting himself to find out the most advantageous employment for whatever capital he can command.” In theory this would be a wonderful thing. Have the government govern as little as possible and allow the freedom of the free market to dictate the wages. The employers versus the employees…both need each other, and both have demands. To a certain extent, these demands can be compromised to please the two parties. There is one objection to the theory that Smith has considered, however. If I was the poor worker, and I did one of the above options, how would I be able to sustain myself in the mean time? I would be in a worse position for a period in time---a period when I would earn no money as opposed to little money. In this way, I would say to myself, “It is better to be paid little than nothing at all,” and I would go back to work with the same wages. As Smith pointed out, if the employer and the employee were to wage war on each other, the master would always win because he can afford to hold out longer. In this way, I believe that Smith would support a means that I the poor worker, would not have to starve---maybe a loan of some sort. There does not necessarily have to be a “minimum wage.” Compromise just has to be encouraged. If there was no such thing as a minimum wage, I can always do one of the 3 options---I just have to receive temporary support that I could repay. If Smith was to stick to the ideals of a capitalist society, he would not be in support of minimum wage.

Great Intentions, Unfortunate Application

If Adam Smith were to be alive today, he would approve of the United States federal minimum wage, the smallest hourly wage a person can obtain when employed. Although at the same time, Adam Smith would be disappointed with the current rate and stigma attached to minimum wage. When Franklin D. Roosevelt presented this idea to the American public and Congress, his main objective was to establishing a living wage so that the average American could survive by working one steady job. Smith would defiantly agree with Franklin D. Roosevelt’s plan because Smith believes a person should do one job full-heartedly and with integrity. Smith also looks to each person to have a special talent per-say and proceed with only that talent. He even states, “Each individual becomes more expert in his own peculiar branch, more work is done upon the whole” (28). Of course, at this time, Americans were suffering the effects of the Great Depression, so job stability and money was a primary concern. Therefore, the public was thrilled about this idea and urged the bill to be past, the public support reached over 80 percent. Today, we no longer have a “living wage”, the minimum wage simply pays a person the bare minimum. As Adam Smith said “his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him” (32). Unfortunately, a person cannot support himself or herself on six dollars and fifty-five cents an hour that is mandated from the federal government. Not only did Adam Smith believe one should be able to support himself with his job but to support his family as well. He states “ labourers must earn at least double their own maintenance, in order that one with another they may be enabled to bring up two children; the labour of the wife” (33). Unfortunately, in today’s economy a single minimum wage job will not support one individual let alone four. Most who primarily live off a minimum wage job are facing poverty. On one hand, I do believe that Adam Smith would support the concept, theory, and initial intent of minimum wage. On the other hand, I do not believe he would be happy with the current minimum wage rates. Information found on :http://www.jstor.org/stable/2747359?seq=11 and http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm.

Waging War on Wages

In my mind, Smith would be in favor of the U.S. Minimum Wage Laws.  He talks a lot in this section about workforce and revenue of a nation resting on everyone's shoulders.  Everyone should be held accountable for working towards bettering a nation and paying for that betterment (even though this is all unequally shared among the people of that nation).  Specifically in the last little bit of his Wealth of Nations, he discusses how there should be a certain percentage of money taken away from everyone's pay to go towards the government.  This is all good, until we look at the actual salaries of the individuals.  Suppose we take ten percent out of everyone's paychecks for taxing and whatnot.  A person making less than seven dollars an hour can barely pay for food, housing and clothing after taxes are deducted.  Whereas, a person making over twenty dollars an hour will experience no problems in these areas.  If we did not have a minimum wage, people could continually be exploited for their hard work and labor AND continue to be taxed.  Unlike other thinkers of his time, Smith takes a happier approach to human nature and government.  Government is there to protect us with as little involvement as possible, but still SOME involvement.  Our taxes go towards our betterment, but why pay taxes to a government that is not going to establish laws to protect your income and "better us" in the first place?

Smith and the Living Wage

Adam Smith would approve of the United States having a federal minimum wage; however, as it is not a living wage, he disapprove of the idea that the federal minimum wage is not enough to cover the cost of living in the U.S. Smith writes that it is the masters of the laborers have an advantage over the laborers, in that they are able to control the extent to which the laborers are paid. On the other hand, Smith does admit that there is a limit to how much an employer can cut wages, “a certain rate which it seems impossible to reduce” (32). Men, thus, must be able to live by the wages they make. Smith goes even further to say that this minimum wage cannot be as low as to support only one person, but that it must be able to support a family. The lowest of all workers must “earn at least double their own maintenance” in order to support a family with two children, or in the case that the both parents work, must at least be more than their own maintenance, if not doubled (33). Therefore, the fact that the lowest laborer in the U.S. cannot fully support themselves on the federal minimum would be seen as a problem to Smith, since these laborers would not be able to support a family with their wages. Smith would urge the federal government to raise the minimum wage to that of a living wage, which some states, such as Maryland, already observe. Furthermore, with the cost of living rising, due to issues such as raises in gas prices, Smith would also judge that the minimum wage should rise with that cost. Overall, Smith seems to feel that even the lowest of the laborers should have a decent life, in which they are able to provide for themselves and their families, if only basically.

Double Edged Sword

At first glance I was tempted to say that Adam Smith would completely love the idea of a minimum wage law. In his writings, which he poses to be objective, one gets the clear sense that he is in reality in favor of the laborer. This could be derived from his comments on the masters, the workers' many plights, and the sheer amount of time he spends talking about the workers' advantages, disadvantage, current state etc. So it would seem obvious that Smith really wants these people to be able to have an assured wage which the employer could not go lower than, and could therefore not abuse his laborers, no matter how unskilled the job was. This idea of a minimum live able wage would indeed be appealing to Smith, if that was indeed the case. The minimum wage law seems as though it is simply a cushion for the common man to assure that they are not abused by employers in regards to pay. But upon observing further, one sees that the minimum wage law can be and has been greatly abused. Simply put, what if the wage is not high enough to live off of? Or what if one needs to work ridiculous hours to make ends meet with the wage? Under these circumstances, the law's seemingly noble goal is completely nullified. The average minimum wage in the United States today is about $7.25 an hour. Now say an uneducated worker works the average 40 hour week. Now, before taxes, that worker only makes $15,080 a year. I dare say that one could not even live for ten months on that, let alone comfortably. Consider someone who is ambitious and, despite their lack of education, wishes to truly get ahead in life, but all they qualify for are minimum wage level jobs. Say they work an 84 hour week, which totals to be 12 hours everyday. In this case, again before taxes, they will make approximately $31,668 a year. While this is a more live able wage, it is still on the very low end of the spectrum and would require someone to devote literally half their life, including sleep, to their work. This represents a possibly endless cycle that could entrap someone until they literally cannot take it anymore and do away with themselves. Not only that, but Adam Smith spoke of how the laborer deserves some quality of life, not just to be barely making it. His wage should be enough to live off of and have a little left over to enjoy recreation. So, on the surface, it seems that the minimum wage law is a blessing to the "common man" and would be praised by Adam Smith to the fullest as for limiting the abuse of employers in regards to wage, it is possible that it might not be so. If the minimum wage was perhaps $11.50 an hour, perhaps he would support it, as it gave the worker in this economy a fair shot at a comfortable life. But the fact is that the minimum wage is so grossly under the requirements of living in this country, that it is just as good as if it were not there. And if Smith saw the law being used to the effect that it is today, he surely would shake his head in frustration.

Blog Assn #5: Smith and the Minimum Wage

Please post about the following topic to the blog by Thursday, Jan. 29, 8 PM:

What would Adam Smith think of the current minimum wage laws in U.S. states?

Babies

I don’t see any reason as to why surrogacy would be outlawed. As long as all the parties consent it all seems fine. There are plenty of reasons why people physically cannot have kids, and if someone still wanted to have one this is their way of doing that. I don’t know why a woman would actually want to carry someone else’s baby inside of them because I am sure pregnancy must suck, but as long as they consent then there is no reason that it should not be allowed. I think that John Locke would support this because having a child is one of those basic rights that everyone should be granted. If a woman was in an accident or something tragic like that and was no longer able to have kids, does that mean that they are not allowed to have another woman do it for them? I don’t know whether there is or not, but there should be a procedure that that wannabe parents have to go through to make sure that they are fit enough to be parents. And just like the wannabe parents the woman who is going to have the baby should have a background check. I don’t personally agree with a woman having someone else’s baby because I think that you should only do that with someone that you really love, but if that’s how they want to give back to the community I don’t think that it should be illegal.

Cystic Fibrosis and Surrogate Mothers

My aunt has struggled with Cystic Fibrosis, a terminal lung disease, since she was a very young girl. She and her parents were told that she would not live past the age of 18. However, today she is still kicking and screaming at the age of 45. After having her second double lung transplant about 6 weeks ago, she is finally on her way home from Pittsburgh, PA this week to once again live with her husband and 8 (almost 9) year-old son. However their son is not biologically hers. My uncle donated his sperm and a woman donated her egg and womb so that they might have a son. They would have used my aunt’s eggs, however due to her condition, they were not viable. My aunt had to adopt her son, however he still considers her his mother and loves her all the same.
Some would claim that this is their point. People who are not physically able to have children are being told by God that they should not have children and they should therefore not be allowed to pay another person to have their child for them. However, I present to you the following evidence. It may go over the 250-300 word limit, but this poem written by my 8 year old cousin shows that even people without the physical ability to bear children can give their child the utmost love and affection.

MOMS by Casey Huber

Moms are like the sun,
It always watches us, just like Moms,
And the sun always sees, just like Moms,
They always let us go.

When it’s dark, Moms always shine light on us.
When it’s cold, Moms always get you warm.

When you’re lonely, Moms comfort you.
When you’ve come inside from a cold winter day,
Moms always make you hit cocoa.

But if your mom isn’t well,
You have to repay her your light, your warmth,
Your comfort, and your cocoa.

Today, let’s thank our Moms
And do something nice for them,
Because they always were there for you,
And they always will be.

Reviewing this poem, I am told that my cousin loves his mother just as much as I love my mother. There is no reason that two people should not be able to pay another willing surrogate to have a child for them. I believe that a woman’s body is hers to do with as she likes. If she chooses to sell her womb to help another couple’s dream come true, then that is her choice. I hope the above poem shows that there is nothing different about a child adopted from a paid surrogate. These parents will still give their child all the love and affection of a normal couple in hopes of having it returned to them by their adopted son or daughter.

Paid Gestational Surrogacy

Every day, millions of babies are conceived – an ability that I view as a wonderful gift. Unfortunately, not every woman was given an equal chance at this. Today, however, there are many different ways to go about having a child, whether it is of natural birth or by other ways like adoption or one that receives a lot of controversy which is paid gestational surrogacy. When questioning the legality of paid gestational surrogacy, I whole-heartedly agree that it should be legal. I believe that every individual should get an equal chance of having a child and starting a family. If a woman is willing to donate her womb and be paid so that another woman can be given the chance to have a child with her own embryo, then so be it. Many people worry the fact that the woman carrying the baby will not want to give it up after birth. The question of which mother truly has the right to own this baby would come up. Locke along with many other people would argue that the woman carrying it would have property because she is the one using her body and labor to carry and give birth to this baby. The things that people have to remember; however, are the facts that paid gestational surrogacy is optional and the woman willing to carry the baby is in no way forced and knows how the procedure works. As long as there are legal contracts that are signed and understood by each party, then there should be no conflict. Honestly, I admire to those woman that are willing to donate their womb, carry another person’s baby, and then give it up after birth all so that another person can be given the chance to have their own baby.

The legality of surrogacy is not a question it is a right!

The ability to have a child, to make a family with someone you love is something which so often we take for granted. Couples across the globe are not so fortunate. For many, the desire to have a child, to be parents, is so important to them. Maybe the mother is infertile, maybe the father is infertile, or perhaps the couple is homosexual, but for whatever the reason, if the couple is loving and can support a child why should they not have the right to have a baby? To deny them this right would be akin to denying people the right to have children. In general, I would say adoption is more widely accepted than surrogacy. But, is adoption so different than surrogacy? In adoption you are adopting a child that is not biologically yours. In surrogacy, the child can be biologically yours, depending on the circumstances of the surrogacy; it is just that another woman is carrying your child. What I don’t understand is how some people can make the judgment that surrogacy is wrong or immoral unless they have been in a situation where they were unable to conceive. To me, it would be wrong to make surrogacy illegal, especially since those that would make it illegal would most likely not be in the minority of people who need to use surrogacy. The right to have a child is a right. It is not something that should be appropriated to some and not all, especially since there are ways, such as surrogacy and adoption, to make this a possibility. It is important that both parties, the couple and the surrogate mother understand all the terms of the arrangement, prior to entering into a contract, so as to avoid any technical issues. With such technicalities out of the way, surrogacy is nothing less than a medical miracle that gives couples the opportunity to have a child. It is a moral route for parents that should stay legal.

WWJD?

Legally, I think paid gestational surrogacy should be allowed. Yes, there are plenty of moral reasons to swing the vote either way, but legally the government should not prohibit a woman and a sterile married couple from having a baby. I mean, if a woman really wants to let a baby grow inside her, who is not related to her in any way, and get money for it, then so be it. As long as everyone’s rights are honored, and the “host” mother does not get emotionally attached or anything crazy, then there should not be any problems with the agreement.
But then again, I am not so sure the government should support this view point. I guess this also kind of goes along with the topic brought up yesterday in class about prostitution. Legally, if a man or woman wants to pay someone to have sex with them, then what’s the problem? If a couple wants to pay a woman to borrow her womb for nine months, then what’s the problem?
Morally, I don’t agree with prostitution. And I’m not so sure I agree with gestational surrogacy either. Yes, it is nice for a couple to be granted with a baby if adoption isn’t working out for them. And it is nice for a homosexual couple to be granted with a baby when naturally they cannot have one on their own. But if the government allows this kind of technology to be used, how much farther will science go in creating life?
A comedian once said, “The Vatican is against surrogate mothers. Good thing they didn't have that rule when Jesus was born.” True dat.

This one goes out to all the surrogate mothers out there!

If a couple wants a child but cannot go through the process themselves (homosexual couples or infertility problems) then there is no reason they cannot find a surrogate mother. The only reason that should stop a couple of that cannot have a child of their own from being allowed to have a surrogate mother is if they are an unstable couple (financially, mentally, or just a weak relationship). There was a recent occurrence of a couple who wanted to have a child but could not. They found a surrogate mother and made a contract. The couple only wanted one child and since surrogate mothers have a higher chance of multiple children, the contract stated that if the surrogate mother has twins then she (the surrogate) agreed to have an abortion up to twelve weeks of pregnancy. The surrogate contacted the couple within seven weeks of pregnancy saying she was pregnant with twins; the couple did not get back to her until six weeks later (thirteen weeks into the pregnancy). The couple wanted the abortion because the surrogate had twins, the surrogate wanted to keep the children because the couple was not thinking about the children anymore just that they wanted one not two. This resulted in a legal battle. This couple should have not been allowed to have a surrogate mother, especially if they cannot abide to their own contract and are not prepared to deal with the chances surrogate mothers carry.
My personal opinion on surrogate motherhood is that if someone wants to be a surrogate mother they should be allowed to do so. It is their body and if they want to make a couple happy by carrying their child then why should they not be allowed to do so? As long as the couple is stable and has a legitimate reason for finding a surrogate mother then why can they not be allowed to find one?

Just as John Locke said everyone has a right to own property, every person has a right to have a child. Paid gestational surrogacy gives numerous couples an opportunity to have a child when they wouldn’t have been able to otherwise. However, I believe a couple must meet certain guidelines to apply for a surrogate mother. The guidelines would be if it were a gay male couple, the mother has fertility problems or health restrictions. However, if the couple wanting a surrogate pregnancy is completely able to have a child I do not think it should be allowed. If a woman is not willing to sacrifice their body to have a child, that woman should not have a child. Sacrificing her body would be the first of many things she would have to sacrifice as a mother, and if she is unable to make one sacrifice, I doubt she would be able to make the others. For women who have infertility problems, gestational surrogacy is a nice option besides adoption; the child would be able to have the same genes as the mother and father. For a gay couple, it would create the opportunity for one partner to be the child’s actual father. It would also be a safe way to have a child if the mother had health restrictions.
On another note, a woman should be allowed to use her body however she pleases. If she wants to be a surrogate mother she should be allowed to be one. However, I think there would have to be proper terms of agreement between the inquiring couple and the surrogate mother. A contract would have to be drawn up and signed.

The Sad Truth

 

    I am not exactly sure why, but I am not that comfortable with the idea of paid gestational surrogacy.  It almost “rubs me the wrong way,” in a sense.  It seems as though it has really become popular the past few years.  It has been featured in the media, in sitcoms, movies such as “Baby Mama” and in books.  I just don’t really think this should be an issue in which the government needs to step in.  It doesn’t harm anyone and is not a violation of anyone’s rights, in my opinion.  It just seems to violate the unspoken morals that I have. 

     On one hand, I feel as though it is okay for a woman to go through with this.  Although money is exchanged, I don’t view it as a business as many people do.  I simply view it as one woman helping another.  It is upsetting (and the sad truth) that teenage girls can get pregnant by accident several times, but some women who are responsible and ready to have a child cannot.  I could understand why they wouldn’t chose adoption.  The women who opt for the use of a surrogate mother usually want to feel as though they are a “part” of their child.  They want to share characteristics with their offspring.  Not being able to have child is a scaring experience for a woman to endure and this is the closet possible way their dream can still exist.  It is safe for me to say that I understand where women in this situation are coming from.

     On the contrary, I just do not think it is right.  I hold the traditional viewpoint in this situation that child birth should be done the way it has for many years. A man and woman have a child together.  I do not think science should be involved with this.  Once science becomes involved things such as cloning and genetic selection-like things occur.  Once gestational surrogacy becomes legal, it will be legal to clone and perform genetic selection because it almost acts as an opening of “Pandora’s Box.”

     In turn, I do not think the legality of this issue needs to be necessarily stopped by the government, or enforced.  It should not even be spoken about by the government.  Women are allowed to do as they wish with their bodies.  I just do not agree with the whole concept, but I can understand where women are coming from by wanting to have a special bond with the children they cannot literally have.  

Empathy Outweighs Ignorance

The only way to effectively give my accurate opinion is for me to put myself in the position of the husband of a wife that cannot have a baby for whatever reason. We are a loving couple who desperately wish to have a child yet cannot adopt based on legal jargon and paperwork. It seems we are not destined to ever have children of our own. But as it turns out, we can have something called gestational surrogacy. Not only would we be able to bring a baby of our own genes into the world, we would also be helping out a surrogate mother with our funds. Perhaps she was poor and this sum of $15,000 or so could get her back on her feet. From this perspective I can honestly see no reason why these people should not be allowed to have a child, even if it is through surrogacy. And from my quite frankly objective view as a college student, I can see absolutely no viable reason why a couple who could support a baby and give it a good life should not be entitled to one through surrogacy. The same extends to my feelings about a loving gay couple. They are deeply in love and fiscally well off. They would be sure to provide a good home and up bringing for the child but physically cannot create it. In my mind this child would be far better off than any natural born infant to impoverished or abusive parents. There are plenty of laws on the books protecting the rights of people with disabilities and equipment and rules to try to level the playing field for them in life. Well, why should infertility or any issue preventing conception not be handled as a disability, which it surely is. As long as the surrogate mother is consenting I can see no problems with it. Obviously there will be people who disagree with me, most likely on religious grounds, or throw out that the surrogate mothers are selling their bodies just like a prostitute, but I'd like to think there is a difference between giving sexual pleasure to a frustrated, middle management 40 something year old man and bringing a child into the world to two loving parents whom will give it the best the best life they possibly can. If a mother is unable to breast feed her natural child for some reason, it is either given formula or breast fed by another mother, it is not simply thrown in the garbage based on the mother's handicap. And I imagine the God didn't want them to have children argument will come up depending on the temperament of the arguing opponent but all I have to say to them is this: "Didn't God use a surrogate mother in the New Testament?"

Oh Yes!!!

I don't see any reason why paid gestational surrogacy should not be legal. I feel that if a couple (homosexual or heterosexual) should be able to raise a child as long as they are fit to raise children. People that are fit to raise a child I would consider to be able to afford the cost of raising children, they should be mentally stable, they should be considered to be a good role model for their children to look up to and people that will give them all the opportunities a parent would try to give their child. Those people that are fit to be parents should not be denied the right to have children. Whether a willing participant carries another couple's child it should not matter, as long as both couples are in agreement with what is going on I don't see anything wrong with it. In terms of a homosexual couple raising a child, there are plenty of gay couples that would be a better fit for a child than some of the heterosexual couples that abuse their children. There are a few problems that could arise with gestational surrogacy. If there were to be a surrogate mother that decides she wants to keep the child, who really has the rights to that child? the real blood mother or the couple that pays the woman to carry their child? I don't see any reason for why gestational surrogacy should not be legal and anyone who is fit t0 raise a child should be able to have the right to be able to.

I am Locke'd in with my answer

Stop complicating the situation! Surrogate motherhood, the exchange of money for use of the womb, is like any other business exchange. Two people have certain desires/wants. They come to a conclusion. One person gets a child that she was not able to produce on her own, and the other receives money, for the sacrifice and labor. How is this different from any other agreement? The only difference is the fact that one is dealing with use of the body, as opposed to money, good, business, etc. Locke, however, emphasizes that the body is property, just as money, land, produce, and the like. Locke cites the example that one can barter plums for acorns, and one would do no harm to society. In order to barter things, both the owner of the plums and of the acorns must come to a common agreement. When the trade is carried out, nothing was done to harm society. Surrogate motherhood is simply a means of bartering. Since the woman’s body is essentially a piece of property, she can “sell” it if she so desires. I do not agree with Audra’s view that surrogate motherhood takes advantage of the poor…in what way? Would she dare to say that selling acorns or apples or plums takes advantage of the poor as well? In the capitalist society, one has the freedom to buy, sell, and trade without any impositions by the government. The government is not needed at large---the nature of the capitalist system is to keep prices reasonable, and everyone ends up satisfied, as in a fair trade. If one member of the trading party is poor (i.e., the surrogate mother), and the other wealthy (the purchaser), both end up getting what they want. Locke would agree to this view of trade with apples and acorns, and since he sees the human body as property, he would agree in the situation of surrogate motherhood as well. The only loophole in this surrogate mother scenario is the birth itself. Before the baby is formed, the process is treated like any other business transaction. The product of this transaction---the child, belongs to no one, according to Locke. He would state that the child is its own “person,” and “nobody has any right to it but itself.” Locke does not address parenthood, although I would venture to say that he would agree that parents are not the owners of their children. The transaction in surrogate motherhood is the use of the womb for money…not the child for the money.

Legal-Yes! Moral-???

Everyday millions of babies are born into the world, some of a traditional mom and dad situation, others due to artificial insemination, and others even due to gestational surrogacy. In today’s world if one is not able to conceive a baby there are many options that may assist the individual. One option that is of utmost controversy, in terms of legality and morality, is paid gestational surrogacy. Currently in the United States, some states find paid gestational surrogacy to be legal while others find it to be illegal to be exact only six states have legalized paid gestational surrogacy. Personally, I believe it is the right of a human to do what he or she wishes with his or her own body, as Locke, and many other founding fathers believed. Therefore, if a woman wants to “rent her womb” for twenty thousand dollars so that another couple can have a desired baby, she can do so. It is not the government’s right to restrain a person from doing as they wish as long as it does not infringe upon another’s rights. No one should ever be forced into paid gestational surrogacy. There must be speculations, as with everything else, if the government was to make it legal in all states. Documents of consent should be signed as well as read to the surrogate mother so that the situation is clear and concise and emotions cannot effect the decision afterwards. If the documents had been completed and signed the surrogate mother could not change her mind, and the birth certificate would legally represent the “social” mother. My only objection to paid gestational surrogacy is the fact that it could be taking advantage of the poor and aiding the rich. The fact of the matter is a person who is willing to spend twenty-thousand dollars or more just to have a baby is very wealthy. While probably the women who is willing to be the surrogate mother is not extremely wealthy, at most middle class. Although, this question of whether paid gestational surrogacy is taking advantage of the poor, is not a part of the legality question, it still remains a factor in my mind. Information utilized from: “Ethical Issues in Gestational Surrogacy” by Rosalie Ber and http://www.surrogacy.com/legals/map.html.

It's Our Right

Despite the moral or emotional issues attached to the concept of paid gestational surrogacy, I personally feel that this practice should be kept legal. I believe in Locke’s idea that “every man has a ‘property’ in his own ‘person.’ [and] This nobody has any right to but himself” (14). To me this means that we have the right to do with our bodies what we wish. That being said, it is the right of a woman to choose if she wishes to become a paid surrogate mother. A surrogate mother understands what she is agreeing to before the start of her pregnancy. Legal documents are written up to ensure that both the surrogate mother and the biological parents agree to the terms, which dictate regulations, such as the payment given to the surrogate mother for both carrying the baby to term or to a certain point in the pregnancy. The fact that these women are paid for carrying a baby that is not biologically theirs is irrelevant to the legality of this practice. If a surrogate mother is not carrying a child as a favor to a family member or close friend, it is only fair that she should be paid for the hardships she has to face during the pregnancy and birth. Furthermore, her medical bills should be paid for by the biological parents, for if they could have a child on their own, they would pay these expenses willingly. As I am aware, the surrogate mothers are fully comprehend of the risk of pregnancy, as most are required to have already had one healthy child, and go through routine doctor’s appointments both before and after conception. If the surrogate mother were to be severely at risk because of her pregnancy, she has the right to terminate it. Clearly, legal measures are taken to cover any and all instances that may arrive throughout the pregnancy. No one is forcing these women to become surrogate mothers. If anything, these women empathize with those who are unable to have children and wish to help with a couple’s situation. The government has no justifiable reason to prohibit paid gestational surrogacy. Even if many feel that paid gestational surrogacy is morally unacceptable, there is to be a separation of church and state, and therefore the government has no grounds on which to make it illegal. In short, the government should have no legal authority over what a person does or does not do with his or her body.
Information of paid gestational surrogacy found on: http://www.circlesurrogacy.com/index.html and http://www.surrogacy.com/legals/gestcontract.html

"I'll be there for you..."

This question really leads me to think of the late, great television show Friends.  Phoebe decides that she wants to help her brother and his wife have a child.  So the sperm and egg are of no genetic relation to Phoebe, expect for the fact that she's the babies' aunt.  This seems to work out all nice, as things usually work out on television.  But is this reality?  From here, I did a little google research.  Surrogacy-eggdonation.com says that the intended/client family can "petition the court to change the birth certificate; this modified birth certificate reflects the correct parentage of the child."  But this is only alright in "surrogate-friendly states" such as California, Texas, Illinois, Minnesota and Florida.

This leads me to a couple of conclusions:

1. Out of the 50 states in the union, only 6 are "surrogate-friendly states"; that is 44 states that do not allow legal surrogacy.

2. After the child is born, there are some legal battles that need to be fought.  Since the surrogate mother is technically the "mother" of the child, then she is on the birth certificate and has some legal rights over the child, until this is changed.

3. Even if the above things are decided on, we cannot forget that we are dealing with human beings who have ever-changing emotions.  God knows what could happen during the process or even after the child is born that could throw a monkey-wrench into the works.

It seems that paid surrogacy is somewhat legal but is all together a messy situation.  If I personally had to vote for/against a surrogacy law, I would vote for it, but the law would detail a strict contract that needed to be signed by all parties involved.  A woman does have the right to decide what she does and does not want to do with her body; if she wants to help a family grow, then she should have the right and ability to do so.  All in all, I guess this is why not every couple gets married and thinks, "Today, we'll pick out our china set and tomorrow we'll pick out a surrogate mother."

On Paid Surrogacy (and why I should go blonde)

Is being able to have a surrogate mother for your child a legal right? This is an issue concerning the rights of what one is allowed to do with their body. Our bodies, being the only thing we possess from the beginning of our lives to the end, is the most exclusive property one shall ever own in their life. Since it is our legal right to do whatever we want with our property by consent(so long as we abide to the natural law of self preservation in order to protect us from hurting ourselves), anything we wish to do with our own sack of meat is for ourselves and only ourselves to decide. If I want to bleach my hair and get my ears pierced, it is for no one else to decide but myself (although there has been a great objection to me going blond on my floor). Relating all this back to paid surrogacy, the concept is pretty much the same - anything we wish to do to our own bodies is a right that we deserve. To have any choice in how we treat our bodies (again, within natural reason of self preservation) denied is just the same as having a government evacuate an area so they can put satellites in. People may not be comfortable with this view of the human body; something that may not be honored as a "holy temple", but our exclusive rights to our bodies is still something that must be respected. So long as the consent of both the parents and the mother agrees with the protocols of a surrogate conception, there is no issue with having a child born this way.

Blog Assn #4: Paid Surrogacy

Please post about the following topic to the blog by Tuesday, Jan. 27, 8 PM:

On your view, should paid gestational surrogacy be legal? Give arguments for your view.

State of Nature

Locke has come up with the idea of naturalism and does not believe that it is bad. It seems that he thinks that being in this natural state is where all of us as people should stay. This is why Locke thinks that we should be able to base our laws around this natural state. I think that what Locke is saying is that is natural state is where God intended us humans to be. Some people, however, could make the argument that this natural state is not good. Some people might say that our natural state is sinful because of Adam and Eve and the origin of sinfulness. It seems like Locke believes that there is an abundance of resources thanks to God. However, we cannot be greedy with all that God has given us and be sure to spread these resources. We need to leave enough for other people and take more than we need, if we are just going to waste those goods. Locke also believes that the world is valuable because it is what God gave us. God has given us all that we need and then some.

Cows are the new Dolphins folks, get the memo... Psht.

John Locke was a notorious optimist. This passage from his work strongly reinforces this point. Locke believes that human nature is inherently good. He argues that all men were created by God to toil on the earth and in doing so; they will produce a result that will help other men. One interesting example of this “in action” comes from the television show, How I Met Your Mother. In an episode called “The Bracket,” the womanizing character, Barney, is forced to come to terms with several women he treated extremely poorly. However, when he comes to apologize to a woman that he abandoned in the woods to be rescued a few hours later by another gentleman, he discovers she ended up marrying the man that found her. In fact, the couple thanks Barney for leaving her in the wild. In this way, Locke argues that some good will come to some other person no matter how bad an action may seem at first. Locke also argues that resources are abundant to a degree. The qualification is meant to signify the fact that resources are abundant to humans when they need them. One resource that follows this logic is the cow. We need cows for food. They are abundant because we only kill enough cows to eat and prevent disease. If cows were being killed for sport, then their abundance would quickly go down. Locke argues that a resource can only be abundant if it is used properly. Animals that were poached for pleasure such as the Bald Eagle are now scarce since they were killed and not used for sustenance or to serve a real purpose. This logic then implies that Locke believes that the world and its environment are extremely valuable and that they will continue to stay that way as long as the resources are used only when needed and never squandered.

Locke on Human Nature and it's Resources

Throughout his essay, Locke made references for the reader to believe human nature is good, “God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life and convenience.” I believe Locke felt that human nature allowed each man to be created and treated equally. Human nature allowed each man to have the same resources. According to Locke, a man should be entitled to have as much land as his labor could take care of. Therefore, every man had an equal opportunity of having the same amount of property and resources.

At first, I believed Locke thought resources are abundant. He believed the world was a large and bountiful place, “that every man should have as much as he could make us of, would hold still in the world, without straightening anybody, since there is land enough in the world to suffice double the inhabitants,” (17). Locke believed that as long as people took only the amount of land they needed and would benefit from resources would be extremely abundant. However, if people were greedy and took more land than they needed resources would be scarce.

As far as how valuable the world and environment is, I believe Locke felt it had inherent value. The more labor put into the earth, greater and more resources are abundant. I believe Locke felt the earth would reward people for the labor they put into it.

pop, locke, and drop it ;)

I believe that John Locke views human nature as both bad and good. On one side of the spectrum, he states that God gave the world to “men in common” to labor over and take care of. God trusted the animals, soils, and fruits of the earth to men; so that means humans have to portray some good traits, right? If humans are trustworthy enough to shape and grow God’s earth, then that must mean that we are good enough to do that. On the other hand, Locke also mentions how if men wastes their property, such as letting fruit spoil, that they should be punished. Also, when Locke started to talk about money, it seemed that he was making comments referring to the wastefulness of humans, such as “ And thus came in the use of money; some lasting thing that men might keep without spoiling”. And this way of thinking has not changed much since Locke’s time; money is wasted now more than ever each day.Also, Locke believes that resources on earth are abundant. Locke stated that, “every man should have as much as he could make use of” and “there is land enough in the world to suffice double the inhabitants.” The world, then, is of course valuable with its many resources for man to acquire and labor over. It only becomes a wasteland once people start to waste its products.

Locke- On human nature, resources, and the value of the environment

Locke begins by posing the question how one should go about appropriating and using property. He states that God gave us all reason to make use of property to the best advantage of life and convenience. Again Locke asserts that man has a right to self-preservation. Every man has property in his/her own person. Another idea Locke discusses is the idea that labor is the component that turns common property into private property. It is labor that one can appropriate common property by, turning it into a private right. He argues that property cannot remain common because otherwise man would have undoubtedly starved. Asking permission from all men is not required otherwise man would not survive. One should be able to take what he needs in order to survive. Locke also claims that in addition to the idea of freedom to property to sustain one’s life, there is a disclaimer. One cannot be greedy and take such a great amount of resources to the point that it affects another’s right to self preservation. Also, the second part to this is that one should not take so much that it goes to waste, or spoils. Locke argues that God has given us reason and therefore we should use this reason to determine what is excess and what is reasonable. At this point Locke states, “For he that leaves as much as another can make use of does as good as take nothing at all.” He uses the example that one could take a large drink of water from a river, but it would be as though he took nothing at all because of the vastness of the resource. He asserts that in addition to water, there is also plenty of land as well. Some resources, such as land and water are plentiful, whereas others aren’t and need to be rationed. It is clear through this reading that Locke believes the world/environment to be a place of great value. How could it not have great value if it is from the environment that we derive many of the necessities and comforts of life? In conclusion, I believe that Locke thinks human nature is good. It would be impossible for him to think less of human nature and still believe in the ideas he discusses in this reading. If humans were solely governed by selfish motives, there would be no way for Locke’s proposal regarding the use and appropriation of land to hold up. Without some sort of concern for mankind there would be a tragedy of the commons.

Locke -- Human Nature

In my opinion, John Locke believes that human nature is good. He says, “God, when He gave the world in common to all mankind, commanded man also to labour, and the penury of his condition required it of him. God and his reason commanded him to subdue the earth – i.e., improve it for the benefit of life and therein lay out something upon it that was his own, his labour” (16). Here Locke is explaining that when man applies labour onto the earth, a form of human nature, they are in fact helping to better it for another person. Locke also explains that when a person takes something out of their common state by applying labour to it, for example killing a dolphin for food, that dolphin becomes their property. I believe Locke argues that resources are abundant, for he writes, “…every man should have as much as he could make use of, would hold still in the world, without straightening anybody, since there is land enough in the world to suffice double the inhabitants…” (17). However, Locke clarifies that one is condemned to punishment if their property is taken advantage of or put to uselessness. This would mean just killing the dolphin for the fun of it instead of killing the dolphin and using it for food. Finally, I believe that Locke argues the fact that the world and environment are without much inherent value, unless labored upon by a person because he writes, “…the extent of ground is of so little value without labour…” (17).

1 Week till the Steelers get their 6th ring!!!!

Locke doesn't come right out and answer whether human nature is good or bad, but he does tend to lean more towards good. Locke explains how God gave us the land when he says "He gave it to the use of the industrious and rational (and labour was to be his title to it); not to the fancy or covetousness of the quarrelsome and contentious." He also says that it is better for humans to do something with the land rather than it left alone and untouched when he says "The difference is between and acre of land planted with tobacco or sugar,... and an acre of the same land lying in common without any husbandry upon it, and he will find that the improvement of labour makes the far greater part of the value." Locke means that when there is labor added to the land it makes the land more valuable rather than when it just is sitting being unused. Locke also states that "Nature, having furnished as liberally as any other people with the materials of plenty" which shows that he believe that there are mass amounts of resources for humans to use. Locke also seems to think that land has potential to be valuable but by itself it has little value. It is shown when he says "The ground which produces the materials is scarce to be reckoned in as any, or at most, but a very small part of it; so little, that even amongst us, land that is left wholly to nature, that hath no improvement of pasturage, tillage, or planting, is called, as indeed it is, waste." Locke is trying to say that humans should use the land for their needs and when we do that the land is of greater value, rather than when it is just left alone and bare.

The Rights to Property

Locke isn't explicit on his views of human nature, but from his very tone of how he addresses human nature he seems to think all people are good. He describes people as abiding to the laws of Nature, mainly the idea that all humans seek self preservation. If he thought human nature was bad, he would have most likely gone through a thorough description on how this could possibly be bad. But he doesn't, indicating there is nothing wrong with abiding to the laws of Nature. He also never makes any address to the quantity of material, rather, he addresses practical use. He seems to make an unstated assumption that we have almost an endless supply of all things, and it is just their worth that decides if there is any right to owning them, since things like water were meant to be left common for the good of all man. Finally, on the topic of how Locke views the environment as a resource or wasteland, Locke seems to be for the former. Locke uses examples such as fruit and other consumable natural resources to argue his point of property. Not only does he believe that the environment of worth, but that the resources it provides are of higher worth. Refined commodities like metals and diamonds Locke thinks are of altered worth, only being given worth by man as a luxury, but that the environment itself has the most worth, for it can be harnessed into something that can meet help us meet the law of Nature.

Locke - Human Nature, Resources, and Environment

Locke never declares his view point on human nature in this section of reading. However, Locke would believe that human nature is generally good. Locke supports his belief because he thinks all men want a stable government and law that are run by consent and men will (for the most part) take only what they need. Locke would not say that every human has a good nature because there are still those who are greedy or those who do not want laws impeding their actions.
Locke finds there to be an abundance of resources. Since God left humans to rule over the earth, naturally God would leave everything for the use of humans. Man can hunt and eat every animal, work and seed a majority of the land, and with this labor, man can generate a seemingly unlimited amount of resources. With all of these resources, Locke sees a problem, how do you declare property? Locke believes that man originally went by, you labor over land, that land is yours, you hunt a rabbit, the rabbit is yours. As long as you are putting forth effort, the result is your property. Eventually this form of ownership disappeared and turned into more of the consenting government deciding ownership and having documents and things of that nature.
The world and environment, according to Locke can be both valuable and a wasteland. If you take only what you need, then you make your environment valuable because you are using everything in your possession. However, if you take too much and let your resources (such as food) go bad then you are generating waste and therefore make your environment a wasteland. Even if you try to sell your products, the labor you put into creating them is not worth any amount of money in return and you are just wasting your effort and product.

Locke on Human Nature, Abundance, and Value of Land

Within this section of Locke, he never directly states whether human nature is neither good nor evil. In terms of what Locke explains about human nature, he sends mix messages. In many means, Locke approves of the way humans are in their natural state. He agrees that we should have the liberties and equality, which exists in the state of nature, but at the same time, he is frightened by the chaos that can develop. Unfortunately, human nature allows people to be violent toward one another, allowing the other to retaliate and the problem of revenge and violence further escalates. In a perfect society in Locke’s world, a limited government would form that allows one to still have the liberties of human nature while having security and protection. Locke states “to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living, one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any that are not of it. This any number of men may do, because it injures not the freedom of the rest; they are left, as they were, in the liberty of the state of Nature” (Chp. 8). Even though Locke does not straightforwardly answer the question whether human nature is good or bad, he often mentions the importance of not forgetting our natural instincts, especially when it comes to the discussion of money. Locke believes money has corrupted humans and allowed the human kind to be greedy. Although Locke thinks that resources are abundant within the world, due to the use of money we do not use the abundance of resources effectively. Locke says “He was only to look that he used them before they spoiled, else he took more than his share, and robbed others” (Chp. 5). Even though the earth’s resources are abundant, Locke does not believe the earth has inherent value. After humans have cultivated the land it becomes of value according to Locke. Locke simply believes that land that is not labored is wasteland. He clearly states “Land that is left wholly to nature, that hath no improvement of pasturage, tillage, or planting, is called, as indeed it is, waste” (Chp. 5). As one can see, Locke comments on how we should use our natural instincts and the nature around us to expand and live life to the fullest.

Of Nature, Property, and Value

John Locke does not directly address in the text whether human nature is good or bad; however he does indicate his thoughts on the nature of men through his ideas on the state of Nature and the ideal government. In the state of Nature, Locke acknowledges that a human’s ability to punish others for various infractions to their liberty could escalate into chaos very quickly. One cannot gauge how violent a punishment may become. Therefore, he realizes that man’s nature is capable of being both good, if people were to treat others the way they wish to be treated, and bad, in that each individual has the ability to wrong others or overly punish them. Furthermore, Locke attest that a government run by the majority will not only keep the freedoms given by the state of Nature but also guarantee security to the people so they will be protected from those who are of a corrupt nature.
In his writings on property, Locke believes that there is an abundance of resources. He feels that as long as man only claims the amount of land that they are capable of using, there will be “enough in the world to suffice double of the inhabitants” (17). Only when money is involved, does Locke feel that the abundance of the earth’s land is threatened. With money, a man can claim more land than is necessary for their amount of labor; thus, taking land from other men who would otherwise use it. Locke also believes that there is not much inherent value in the land or earth. Although he writes that the land is useful in that it provides food for gathering, he also claims that the more labor used to cultivate the land, the more valuable the land becomes. Thus, land that has not been cultivated is a “waste” of land, for it will not benefit man as much in its natural state.

Heart-Shaped Locke-t?

Locke never uses the words "good" or "bad" when describing human nature, but he does represent some instances where humans are not too "good".  He describes Americans and the land in the Americas as almost primitive and lacking in culture and civilization.  Probably the most notable thing Locke says about Americans is that they are "rich in land and poor in all the comforts of life" (19).  This seems to be as a "bad" statement about mankind, but a harsh reality.  Locke never sugar coats that fact that humans are human and have good qualities and bad qualities.  Playing off the same quote, Locke makes some statements about resources as well.  He never says the supplies we need are hard to find, it is just that once we find it, it is our right to keep it (property rights so to speak).  The Earth supplies us with the resources we need and enough of them to survive, but there seems to be some underlying idea that land is somewhat hard to come by, which is why once someone obtains land, it is theirs for the long-haul.  A similar idea can be applied to what Locke thinks of the environment.  Land  and what it produces is somewhat valuable, but what we do to it (labor) makes it even more valuable.  He flat out says on page 19 that "it is labour, then, which puts the greatest part of value upon land."  So it is the things that we humans do that adds value and purpose to the natural materials around us.

Locke-ness monster

Locke states that human beings are given everything in the world, but also natural reason, to better their lives and do with the world as is fit for that purpose. The nature of human beings is to work for the purpose of improving their lives. Locke emphasizes that this is not a bad thing, that God actually commands us to work for this sake. The act of taking the gifts of nature and using them to our advantage is not stealing so long as we: 1) use the gifts of nature, and 2) have them be the product of our own labor. I, myself, have read about this concept. Some people may object that this brings out a selfish side of human beings, that they only are concerned with themselves. This is not the case. People should not have to be accused of corruption for working for their own success because they earned it. As in Genesis, God states, “by the sweat of your brow shall you work all the days of your life.” It is not an evil to be concerned first and foremost about oneself. This is the driving force in capitalism and in our modern day government. If, as Locke points out, humans did not exercise this aspect of human nature, all of Nature’s gifts would remain unutilized, and all the benefits of industry and technology would not exist. In short, attending to oneself also indirectly benefits all of society.
Resources, as Locke stresses, are practically limitless. He believes that even in his day that the world still has not been worked and tilled to its capacity. Even if one person drinks his fill of water, there is still a whole stream for everyone else. Locke cites Genesis; how God made the whole world for the purpose of man to utilize it. The bottom line is that there is enough for everyone’s needs, but people are stealing from mankind if they take more than can be beneficially used. The world and the environment is God’s gift to mankind, but, as Locke mentions, Nature is nothing compared to the value of labor. The objects of the world, if left untouched, are almost worthless. One needs to incorporate his own work into these objects in order for them to be of value. The world is like an investment. God gives the resources, but one has to labor for the fruits to be multiplied.

Split Decisions....

According to Locke, human nature is not necessarily good or bad. Human nature can take several different paths. It is almost similar to a “choose your own adventure” novel. Locke presents the theory that when a human works on the land, that land belongs to him or her. If a man decides to purchase a field, plant crops and build a house, that land is his property. Making an assumption from the reading, I would argue that Locke feels that human nature can deal with this situation in a positive and negative way. On one hand, one may purchase the land and use the entire plot; while on the other hand, one may only utilize only a small proportion. This sheds a negative light on human nature, portraying it as greed- driven.
Locke also discusses the thesis that the “majority rule” theory should be the governing principle in a civil society. This portrays humanity in a positive light, in that the utilitarian principle helps the largest amount of its constituents. This example shows us that human nature can have a “good side.”
Inferring from the reading, it seems as though Locke views resources as if going through a scarcity. This is the same argument as presented before: one should not greedily take more land than needed because that would be overextending him or herself. Man can either cultivate the land and reap its benefits, or he can leave it to turn to waste. The decision of whether the land is valuable or not is up to man.
We as humans use our ability to reason when deciding whether or not land holds a certain magnitude of value. If man works off of the assumption that land is valuable then it will, over time, become scarce. Human nature plays a key role in this situation because the manner in which he or she acts determines whether land is scare, abundant, valuable or invaluable.

All of the above

Locke seems to think on two planes about each of the subjects presented. While he certainly never describes human nature as bad or evil, he does point out in various instances when man does wrong, whether it is hurting his neighbor or taking more than his share from nature. The impression the readings give me is that man is truly free and that human nature is neither good nor evil. He seems to take into account the individuality of each subject and recognize that some will break the social contract, while others will die to have it upheld. This reflects his views on the Earth and resources as well. When asked if he views the Earth as a barren wasteland or not, I was at first tempted to state that he believes the earth is extraordinarily bountiful and a wonderful thing that can be cultivated by man. But on the same note he brings up instances in which man has taken more land than he can cultivate, so the wasted land turns to just that; a wasteland. So, just like in man, he sees the world as having the potential to be a beautiful and fertile place, but only if man is willing to labor for it; at least involving land in a community. He never really mentioned nature uninhabited or undiscovered. When looked at as a matter of value, I believe he sees land as an invaluable resource in the hands of a capable and ambitious man. As far as resource is concerned, Locke believes that there is an overabundance of resource, but again, only if man is willing to work for it to make it his property. He acknowledges that as long as man takes what they truly need and no more, then there is enough for everyone who is willing to work for it. However, he also acknowledges his antagonist, the man who would take more than he needs and likely waste it. In this case, if enough people followed this example, it could lead to a scarcity. Locke was very difficult to interpret on these subjects, as he seemed to have his thought process involving the subject at hand constantly interupted by circumstances created by the freedoms man enjoys. However, in that nature, is shows his true beliefs on the issue; they can all go either way, depending entirely on whether man chooses for his nature to be good or bad.

Blog Assn #3: Locke on Nature and Human Nature

Please post about the following topic to the blog by Sunday, Jan. 25, 8 PM:

For Locke, is human nature good or bad? Are resources abundant or scarce? Is the world and the environment valuable, or without much inherent value?

Locke

John Locke has a good idea of how we should make our government. His ideas of this natural state, seems similar to how we wanted our Constitution to come across to people. Locke breaks it down by saying what do you humans do naturally? And our law should be based around this. Whatever freedoms are person would have naturally like the pursuit of happiness and the right to own property should be made law. People should be granted natural rights such as these because everyone was created equal and are able to exercise these natural rights. Just like in nature, when someone does some sort of wrong to us, we are then entitled to hold these offenders accountable and makes me think of the expression, “an for an eye.” However at the same time people also feel like they may have too much power if the are given so much freedom and Locke picks up on this. One great example of this when people first go off to college. Sometimes students don’t know what to do with so much freedom and so they end up messing up their lives, people don’t know how to handle their parents not telling them what to do and this sometimes leads to people getting poorer grades than what they used to get or getting too involved with the party scene and sometimes are asked to leave their institution.

John Locke -- State of Nature

John Locke talks about the state of nature to emphasize his political beliefs. He says that, “we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the ill of any other man” (8). Locke believes that everyone has the right of equality and freedom to make their own decisions as long as those choices abide by law. He argues this because he believes that everyone was created equally by the same God. He also explains that every human deserves the right to punish their offender. He says, “…he who hath received any damage has…a particular right to seek reparation from him that hath done it” (10).
John Locke explains that the only reason a person would leave the state of nature would be during times of war. This is due to the fact that war results from two parties that have opposing viewpoints and beliefs as to what they see are right. When this occurs, the state of nature and mentality of equality between all people is broken. Locke says, “Men living together according to reason without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge between them, is properly the state of Nature. But force, or a declared design of force upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief, is the state of war; and it is the want of such an appeal gives a man the right of war even against an aggressor, though he be in society and a fellow-subject” (13).

Locke and key

Locke talks about the state of nature for the purpose of answering the following questions: 1) why do men have rights, and 2) what rights do men have? It is as if mankind is a written document. Locke needs to deduce what the document is saying based on the actual words that are written. In order to make an implication, one has to go back to the written words. This is what Locke is doing. His implication, the existence of men’s rights, comes from the evidence or written words, the state of nature. Locke believes that by nature, every person is born with equality---no person should have any superiority over any other human being. What indisputable fact can Locke make about all human beings in order to reason this “equality?” All are born with “the same faculties, and also should be equal one amongst another.” Kings, queens, and all other leaders of countries take power not because they, by nature, are better than anyone else. If this was so, the King/Queen could be born in any part of the world, and its people would universally recognize the King’s/Queen’s superiority.
Kings, Queens, and other leaders leave the state of nature. This is because they want to force subjugation. This incident would be similar to one slave forcing another slave to serve him/her. Slaves have no authority, by definition, to make another serve him/her. One slave cannot be seen as superior to another. However, a slave, in fact, has the option of making another serve him/her…but there is no justification. Selfishness is the main reason for leaving the laws of nature. It is like lying to oneself.
Another emphasis Locke uses for his reasoning is religion. In a way, all human beings are servants/slaves to God. God is the only authority. He made all people equal, and he made them all to serve Him. No person can claim superiority over another because all men have been made from “the slime of the earth.”
Locke’s ideology is in contrast with the theory of evolution, and consequently, with Marx (who dedicated his work to Darwin). With evolution, there is an absence of God, and the laws of nature are interpreted differently. People are not born equally, but rather, their biological traits determine their worth. Locke’s approach to human value does not deal with the biological, but the soul.

Enough bellyaching about people being gone. I'm sure the new people are just as nice.

When Locke speaks of a State of Nature, he speaks of a state that humans naturally return to when no ruling body is in place to command their lives. This state of nature is important to understand because it describes the basic rights that every human has. In class, one question seemed to remain unanswered, “What entitles us to the rights that we claim to have?” While this has caused many stops in conversation in the past, Locke seems to answer it right away. According to Locke, men have rights because they have “ a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit… without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man” (Locke 4). Locke speaks of this state because it provides the basis for every human having rights. In other words, Locke is saying that the state of nature is important because it gives a human the right to govern his or her own body as he or she wishes. Yet Locke also addresses the issue of why people want to leave the state of nature. Essentially, people wish to leave the state of nature because they are not comfortable with having so much control over their own lives. In my personal experience, this is true even when I am doing something as simple as clothes-shopping. Even though it is my money and I may use it as I like; I still find myself asking my family whether they believe something is right for me or if it is a good value. Men and women wish to leave the state of nature because it lessens the burden on their own minds to make decisions.

The State of Man

In this book, Locke is trying to identify what power is and how should it be used. He first identifies the "default" system for how a group of people would act with no actual form of government in place, calling this the State of Nature. This is where members of the community have perfect freedom, not much different from a beast. Because at this point the community in question is new, quite often cooperative behavior should be observed. In an ideal situation, it would remain at this state; families helping others through crisis and creating well being through integrated teamwork. However, Locke doesn't think this is what happens. Eventually we come to the weakness of human nature, where crime uproots the status quo. At this point being "truly free" is not really free at all, and continuing to stay in the State of Nature is detrimental. For the worst, a community enters a State of War, where chaos and violence ravage any and all. What is the better alternative? Creating a government that is to serve the community in the business of protecting individual rights. With proper enforcement of one’s personal rights, innocent members who continually maintain a normal mentality will be able to live with the freedom of choice, so long as no other person with rights is harmed in the process. So any proper government that provides protection of rights can help maintain order that prevents a State of War. Of course, this rights-enforcing government isn't pure like the State of Nature, but the State of Nature itself isn't stable. Over time, members who deviate from being mutuality will force any community into forming an organization to protect fair rights due to all, or for that community to plunge into chaos.

John Locke writes about a “state of nature” to speak his mind on the matter of equality between all men and how people should be governed. Locke believes that since Adam was not given any kind of superiority role over the rest of mankind, that there is no rightful heir to the power of governing the world. Because of this, all men are created equal and should not have to answer to anyone. By saying this, everyone has the power of free will and the choice to do whatever they want. Another point Locke makes is that everyone should also love each other mutually and do no harm unto each other. Of course, human beings are not built to live that way naturally, so Locke says it is okay for someone to be in power solely to punish. Furthering this, Locke states that natural law requires that the punishment fit the crime. For example, if a person murdered someone, their punishment should be death.
Unfortunately, Locke realizes that this way of life would not work very well. People would be too biased to judge their own crimes without any sole person in control of the matter. It would be as if I committed a crime, and all my friends and family were the members of the jury. I think I would probably get let off with just a warning. The world we live in would turn to “confusion and disorder” and, simply, would not be capable of living in.

State of Nature

Locke talks about the state of Nature because nature is where everyone came from. We as a species grew from nature and before laws and governments; we abided by general notions that made sense. Locke thinks the law of Nature is where we base our political views and our feelings of right and wrong. If a man does not perceive another man as being human, that can motivate him to leave the “state of Nature”. For instance, with slavery, whites did not see Africans as humans and because of that, whites had no problem enslaving them. Greed and laziness can also be driving forces to leave the state of Nature. Slaves are used for free labor from people who do not fight back; it takes a very greedy and lazy person to not earn money by doing their own work. Because the slaves did not fight back (as much as “Nature” would allow), the owners had no reason to fear the “law of Nature” because they never felt the repercussions of their terrible actions. In order for the law of Nature to work, everyone must be aware of its existence. If a man kills a father’s son, then that father has the right to kill that man; however, if the father does not kill that man then the law of Nature fails because the father did not punish the man for his actions. A man with no fear of repercussions has no need to abide by the state or law of Nature.